Can Ubuntu 9.10 Outperform Mac OS X 10.6?

[thefirstm]

Microsoft funding the development on the Linux kernel? I think not! Microsoft is scared to death of Linux. Just look at itsbetterwithwindows.com.

[deanjo]

This isn't true at all. The recently released report on who writes linux (see tables 9 & 10) actually shows the opposite. Overall RH has contributed 12.3% of changes to the kernel, while since 2.6.24 that percentages has actually decreased slightly to 12.0%. Also since 2.6.24, independent developers have contributed 21.1% and IBM, Novell and Intel have all contributed 6+%. I'd say that's hardly dominant.


What do you mean by that? Do Red Hat and Novell get handouts from proprietary software companies? IBM and Intel certainly don't.

A large number of independent developers working on the kernel work as well on proprietary software to pay the bills. Also how many of those developers have received scholarships from organizations such as google, microsoft, etc for r&d and scholarships then use those techniques in the kernel or other opensource projects? I have to cut this response short (time for work) but as far as handouts go you might want to see who Novells largest customer has been the last couple of years and check their portfolio of solutions. You will find many proprietary solutions in there catalog.

[krazy]

While that's nice and all with using Red Hat as an example it also serves as an example of how dominant even in opensource 1 company can get and influence the direction of a product. RH's contributions to linux have been invaluable but as time goes on you can also see they are having more and more influence on it's direction.

This isn't true at all. The recently released report on who writes linux (see tables 9 & 10) actually shows the opposite. Overall RH has contributed 12.3% of changes to the kernel, while since 2.6.24 that percentages has actually decreased slightly to 12.0%. Also since 2.6.24, independent developers have contributed 21.1% and IBM, Novell and Intel have all contributed 6+%. I'd say that's hardly dominant.

This is a common song among the big distro's. So who do they look at for that almighty dollar? The exact same profiteering private companies. Those are the exact same companies that you have issues with. Now you make it so those companies don't exist there goes the funding to keep developing.

What do you mean by that? Do Red Hat and Novell get handouts from proprietary software companies? IBM and Intel certainly don't.

[deanjo]

On the other hand we have the free software movement and the model they promote. I remember few years ago an interview with one of RedHat's key guys. Along with other words he had said
"who says GPL is bad for enterprises? Look us, in a matter of time we doubled our stock and now we are in a position we could not imagine. Without GPL we would have been struggled at the very begining from some colossal company and disappeared from the earth".

***snip***

than the previous years.
Anyway, to finish I'll say that the amount of money is about standard, the matter is to move it around and nothing more. The current model doesn't help at all to that.


Well, I believe is realistic every national school in the universe to use OSS

While that's nice and all with using Red Hat as an example it also serves as an example of how dominant even in opensource 1 company can get and influence the direction of a product. RH's contributions to linux have been invaluable but as time goes on you can also see they are having more and more influence on it's direction. Also keep in mind that as big as Red Hat is financially they are also one of the first ones to admit that there is no money in linux desktops.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/red-hat-ceo-questions-desktops-relevance-in-linux-debate-807

This is a common song among the big distro's. So who do they look at for that almighty dollar? The exact same profiteering private companies. Those are the exact same companies that you have issues with. Now you make it so those companies don't exist there goes the funding to keep developing. One hand feeds the other. Without those corporate entities do you really think that IT would have exploded as it has over the last 35 years? Personal computing was a hobby to a select few. Fortunately someone had the sense and showed the world that software could be profitable and thus stimulated development and growth of the industry. In educational use that maybe fine to use free software but if your planning on building a future career in the industry and live comfortably you have to also see where closed source apps have their place. Lets face it, as far as linux has come, there are many applications and fields that it simply lacks any presence in.

Also Red Hat when it comes to share of the software industry doesn't even come close to ranking as a large software company.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/18/global-09_The-Global-2000_IndName_17.html

Even companies that specialize in a specific product crush Redhat such as Intuit, CA, VMWare, etc. (Red hat has a current market value of roughly 700 million which is pretty small in the software world and to date I don't ever recall Redhat being able to dish out dividends). So while RH may be HUGE in linux circles, it is very small compared in the IT industry scale.

[Apopas]

Yeah, there are a few of us, greek lurkers here.

The central library installed Linux systems a few years ago (running SuSE, IIRC) but those were removed last year (probably) due to low usage. It also had a few systems that ran Windows NT 4 last time I checked, but scarcely anyone uses those anymore. The good thing is that every PC lab I've been to is running some form of Linux, as are most libraries. The same holds for the VR lab (which also sports a nice one-wall CAVE), while the whole network infrastructure is built on BSD and Linux.

Wow, I coudln't imagine Linux was going so well in Greece.
So in the library installed few SuSE systems only? The current PCs that they are still used what run?

[BlackStar]

You are greek mate? Then you know the case well, though I believe it was just one mans fault this agreement, but anyway here isn't the best place to judge politicians.
Maybe Linux is quite widespread in technical universities but when I was in NTUA I remember the central library's PCs were running window$? Why? They were used just for surfing after all.

Yeah, there are a few of us, greek lurkers here.

The central library installed Linux systems a few years ago (running SuSE, IIRC) but those were removed last year (probably) due to low usage. It also had a few systems that ran Windows NT 4 last time I checked, but scarcely anyone uses those anymore. The good thing is that every PC lab I've been to is running some form of Linux, as are most libraries. The same holds for the VR lab (which also sports a nice one-wall CAVE), while the whole network infrastructure is built on BSD and Linux.

[Apopas]

At least the use of Linux is quite widespread in technical universities, with Linux-only labs and courses that even touch kernel development. That said, the Microsoft deal was really, really moronic. Guess that's to be expected of the current government...

You are greek mate? Then you know the case well, though I believe it was just one mans fault this agreement, but anyway here isn't the best place to judge politicians.
Maybe Linux is quite widespread in technical universities but when I was in NTUA I remember the central library's PCs were running window$? Why? They were used just for surfing after all.

[Apopas]

Thing is Apopas, we are a economic driven society. It takes money to make money. Could you imagine what kind of state the linux kernel would be in if it wasn't for those companies that generate revenue off their proprietary solutions (this means killing off every kernel contribution that has touched the kernel, removing the code as if it never existed from companies that sponsor or hire the developers nor benefit from any of their r&d). So now everybody shifts to where hardware is where it's at for making profit in IT. What happens then is prices sky rocket on the hardware and costs on that hardware goes up as well. Raising costs resulting killing off the small guy's that might have had a chance had costs been lower and then we tread into monopoly country again. It's all a game of give and take both ways. The only keeping prices in check is competitive alternative solutions. If everything was proprietary that would be bad but the same can be said if everything was open source. They both feed off of one another.

Actually, every society that has ever existed was economic driven. Since Homo Sapiens who traded meat for tools and thus the best hunter had the best equipment and vice versa till 3000 AD when we will trade with the ETs from the X76 planet of the neighbour galaxy. No wonder why ancient Greeks had made a god for merchantry.
During history the ways of making wealth and the economical models have changed dramatically along technology's evolution. What was/is the best way, nobody is able to say for sure but one thing that has been proved as a terrible mistake despite the era that happened is the accumulation of riches in the hands of few. Despite the technology and education our period offers, we weren't able to stop that and the thing I find as the funniest of all is that the wealthiest man overall belongs to the room of software. Well, everybody knows who this dude is...
So, what do we have with our current model? Very few companies that were smarter or even luckier at the begining of all these are able today to control almost the whole market. They sue and close smaller companies, hire or fire indivinduals in the way they want, have a tremendous power of advertising that transforms tomatoes to potatoes, fight to establish software patent laws in every country and in general control a big part of the global economy.
On the other hand we have the free software movement and the model they promote. I remember few years ago an interview with one of RedHat's key guys. Along with other words he had said
"who says GPL is bad for enterprises? Look us, in a matter of time we doubled our stock and now we are in a position we could not imagine. Without GPL we would have been struggled at the very begining from some colossal company and disappeared from the earth".
Indeed RedHat today has almost 3000 employees. Well, they are not Microsoft, but why should be? I look from myself as well. I have a small company with 2 other guys that build websites, graphics, advertisements etc. We do well but we didn't have to pay for software since the very begining and thus, we gave extra money for better hardware. Believe me it helped.
The power of free software is that it helps smaller companies to be established and can be very profitable, though I doubt they will ever make a tremendous income. But that's the positive of the case. For example look again at MS and RedHat. MS produces operating systems, office applications, search engine, video games, game consoles etc etc. RedHat will never be able to produce so many and that means more smaller companies around, each one with speciality in one or two things and this also means more bosses with less money each one, more employees in the jobs and greater need for cooperation. Some will argue that the companies won't have enough money for research and thus the evolution will be slower, but if everything is both opensource and there are more employees around, the manpower which will have access to the products will achieve tremendous numbers. This can only lead to even faster evolution than now (the absence of software patents will help to this as well) and the most important, in a clearer way than now.
The benefit will touch and other facts as well. I will say a small example I know well. In my country there was an agreement with MS to install MS products in the school. That means the goverment will give more money for education than they used to do. While this sounds terrific, the cash that will go for needs like books, better schools etc will be even less than before if we remove the part the software needs. Someone will say "and the software does not count?" Ofcourse it does, but we could have it for free and pay for the support that is really needed in cases like that, while the idea of opensource is better for educational use. So while we really offer more money for education the benefit is less than the previous years.
Anyway, to finish I'll say that the amount of money is about standard, the matter is to move it around and nothing more. The current model doesn't help at all to that.

Love it or hate it, it is the world we live in.

Well, I believe is realistic every national school in the universe to use OSS

[BlackStar]

Maybe your government's guys are smarter than ours. Here last year they contracted an agreement with MS for using MS products (not just OS) everywere they can and they passed the law during summer when the capital was empty
Fortunately, (just for that case) the laws in Greece are rarely active

At least the use of Linux is quite widespread in technical universities, with Linux-only labs and courses that even touch kernel development. That said, the Microsoft deal was really, really moronic. Guess that's to be expected of the current government...

[L33F3R]

I not completely agree. I think that this site it's *REALLY* important for the FOSS promotion.

I think we are saying the same thing here. . Im just saying the principals used by FOSS can be applied elsewhere.